add data integrity verifiable presentation as proof of possession

[F-Node-Karlsruhe]

Added a linked data proof type for the proof of possession in the OID4VCI flow

Original PR: https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/pull-requests/487/add-ldp_vp-as-proof-of-possession

[F-Node-Karlsruhe]

For the use case of proof of possession i actually advocate removing the version number 2.0 ldp_vp_2.0-> ldp_vp again as the proof already carries this information itself and it only makes the spec more complicated.

One verifying a ldp_vp should both be capable of verifying a 1.0 as well as a 2.0 depending on the referenced context. Especially bearing in mind that the data model only changed slightly and the general form of the presentation remains the same. Most libraries already are capable of treating both versions at the same time.

This naming is also more consistent with with the rest of the spec, where all DI-Proof credentials are typed as ldp_vc

@awoie

[dlongley]

For the use case of proof of possession i actually advocate removing the version number 2.0 ldp_vp_2.0-> ldp_vp again as the proof already carries this information itself and it only makes the spec more complicated.

One verifying a ldp_vp should both be capable of verifying a 1.0 as well as a 2.0 depending on the referenced context. Especially bearing in mind that the data model only changed slightly and the general form of the presentation remains the same. Most libraries already are capable of treating both versions at the same time.

+1 to keeping ldp_vp for simplicity.

[Sakurann]

@dlongley does the mechanism described in the PR looks good to you? would appreciate an approval/request for changes.

[dlongley]

Approving with a few comments, one a minor clean up and the other a comment on language used in specs (generally) around "proof of possession" that promises / requires more than is technically possible.

[dlongley]

@Sakurann,

does the mechanism described in the PR looks good to you? would appreciate an approval/request for changes.

Yes, approved -- with a couple of minor suggestions. This would be very helpful, thanks!

[Sakurann]

example needs to be moved to an appropriate section

[Sakurann]

concrete changes suggested

[Sakurann]

looks good. approving assuming my one suggestion will be accepted

[Sakurann]

@F-Node-Karlsruhe thank you for the PR and working with us. apologies it took the wg a while to merge this!

[Sakurann]

@F-Node-Karlsruhe what name can I use to add you to the contributors in the acknowledgements section of the specificaiton?

[F-Node-Karlsruhe]

@F-Node-Karlsruhe what name can I use to add you to the contributors in the acknowledgements section of the specificaiton?

Christian Fries - European EPC Competence Center

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Fries4

thank you for mentioning me :)